There were several partial abortion bills:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108Qp6JNK:e19902:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:3:./temp/~c106kLG8f1:

Though I could not find such a statement in the text of any of them yet, I did find this in the Findings section:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108Qp6JNK:e2908:

“Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person’.” (look under (14) (H))

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion law has been criticized by groups like the colorado right to life for language in the ruling which legitamizes abortions.

http://coloradorighttolife.org/openletter

(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,’ was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person’ under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person’. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child. (source: nrlc.org)

What it is actually saying is that even Roe v Wade said it was a person once the delivery process “had begun” and therefore it’s appealing to the logic of those who hold Roe as this untouchable decision.

Perhaps that is not what you referring to. If not, please post, because it is important. And thanks for taking the time. Merry Christmas!

I know Ron Paul has a history of vetoing even good sounding bills, if they seem unconstitutional, limit states rights or contain some pork barrel line. And like you, I’d just like the confusion cleared up — beyond just speculation.

Again, thanks for your comment. You’re welcome to stop in any time and chime in any place you agree or disagree.

As for your highlighted items, I would like to try and point out why he might have voted that way (I’m not going to be as specific as to check the wording beyond the title, like Jonathan did).

* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
This I think is more of a “how would you enforce this?” than anything else. Constitutionally there is also the problem that it would make traveling across state lines illegal in some circumstances, something the Founders did not intend.

* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Did you know there is no federal law against murder? If someone commits a murder in Texas, and then goes to Colorado and commits another murder, that person is to be tried in Texas for murder A and then tried in Colorado for murder B. Many states (I don’t know the exact amount) include the death of a fetus as a murder. Look at Scott Peterson for one example.

* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
I’m confused on this one, given his voting record on stem cell research. I’ll have to look it up to even come close to an answer.

* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Frankly I’m more surprised about the support for funding health providers with federal money than anything else. Also, I don’t know what is meant by abortion info. I can only assume (by looking around your site) that you mean info against abortion. Another one I need to research.

* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
See the one just a little above this. I’m thinking this has more to do with state’s rights than anything.

* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Same answer as the first highlighted item. The enforcement problem, as well as making interstate travel illegal in some circumstances.

Based on your website design, I can tell I’m not going to agree with you a lot. However, I like what I have seen so far because you offer a viewpoint I don’t normally see. I’ll probably be checking back in from time to time to see what you have to say.